Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Korach

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand first quoted Rashi who states that this Parsha is very well explained. The Pri Megadim clarifies that this is due to the nature of the subject matter. Prior to Sukkos would not be an opportune time for a shiur on Pesach. But due to the subject matter of Machlokes, it is always a good time for a discussion, summer, spring, winter or fall.

R' Frand also said a vort related to the curious "minhag" that when a Chosson attempts to speak at his Tish, the friends always cut him off. The Belzer Rebbi states that this is a lesson to the Chosson from this week's parsha that "you don't always need to have the last word" and right before his wedding is the best time to learn it.

The third thought that R' Frand said was more substantive and it related to the first words of the Parsha in Bamidbar 16:1 "וַיִּקַּ֣ח קֹ֔רַח." Rashi asks what did Korach take? The entire Parsha is devoid of reference to Korach taking anything! 

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 109 states that Korach got a bad deal. But again, what is the bad deal? If a person buys a car and its a lemon, that's a bad deal. But what did he acquire.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Be'er Yosef which cites Rashi who asks - Korach was a smart man, why did he chase this. R' Frand said parenthetically that we can see Korach was smart as he chose this point to challenge Moshe. Korach's issues with Moshe had certainly been percolating for a while. But he waited until Moshe's stature in the opinion polls was at its low point as Moshe had just told the Jews that they would not be entering the land of Israel for another forty years.

But this was certainly a bad deal as he had no better than a 1:250 chance in succeeding in his challenge. So why did he pursue it? Because he saw in the future that he would have Shmuel as a descendant and that 24 Mishmaros of his descendants would have prophecy. Based on this view of himself, he thought he was on par with Moshe.

But according to the Sefer Zayis Ra'anan which was quoted in the Be'er Yosef, Korach was mislead because he did not see the chicken and the egg. He gave an example of the Bechorim who have inherent Kedusha. The reason for their special status is because they had caused a great Kiddush Hashem in that Hashem had separated between the Bechorim of Egypt and the Jewish Bechorim. They were living examples of Hashem's ability to deliver a specific punishment to one set of people while sparing another.

The Sefer Zayis Ra'anan states that similarly Korach was Zoche to have a Shmuel and the prophets who followed him, because he unwittingly created a Kiddush Hashem of great proportions. He challenged Moshe and Aharon publicly and Hashem made a great miracle. His role in causing this Kiddush Hashem was certainly not intentional, but he was rewarded with Shmuel and his progeny, simply because he engendered a Kiddush Hashem.

Based on this, the Be'er Yosef explains what the bad deal was that Korach selected. Because would a person rather have himself and his family swallowed up by the ground in exchange for being the forefather of Shmuel HaNavi? No, that was a bad deal, because his public death in an unnatural manner was not worth having a descendant like Shmuel.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Shelach

Although Rabbi Frand did not give his shiur this evening, he did post a pre-recorded Parsha vort on OU Torah which I have summarized here. This week's vort can be found at https://outorah.org/p/256062, and I have attempted to reproduce the vort to the best of my ability in this post.  Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to the maggid shiur.

Rabbi Frand noted that the Parsha has one of the seminal events which effects us until this very day - the Meraglim. As a result of their crying about not wanting to go into the land of Israel, Hashem decreed that all those over the age twenty would die out and would not be allowed to enter the land of Israel.

In Bamdibar 14:34, the Torah states בְּמִסְפַּ֨ר הַיָּמִ֜ים אֲשֶׁר־תַּרְתֶּ֣ם אֶת־הָאָ֘רֶץ֘ אַרְבָּעִ֣ים יוֹם֒ י֣וֹם לַשָּׁנָ֞ה י֣וֹם לַשָּׁנָ֗ה תִּשְׂאוּ֙ אֶת־עֲו‍ֹנֹ֣תֵיכֶ֔ם אַרְבָּעִ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם אֶת־תְּנֽוּאָתִֽ - the Jews would be required to wander the desert for forty years because the Meraglim had spent forty days on their journey to spy out the land.

R' Frand quoted R' Shlomo Kluger who asks - their sin was for speaking Lashon Hara. But the speech took a manner of minutes, not forty days! He answered that the sin of Lashon Hara does not begin with the mouth. Instead it begins with the eye and ends with the tongue. Lashon Hara is based on perception and how you interpret what you view is the basis of Lashon Hara.

R' Frand gave an example based on Bamidbar 13:32 in which the Meraglim report -  אֶ֣רֶץ אֹכֶ֤לֶת יֽוֹשְׁבֶ֨יהָ֙ הִ֔וא - its a land which eats its inhabitants. Chazal explain that wherever the Meraglim went they saw funerals. They interpreted this as the land could not sustain its residents. But instead, Hashem caused people to die so that the residents would not be paying attention to the Meraglim. 

R' Frand summarized this by stating the sin of Lashon Hara is based entirely on the perception - its up to you to see the good or the bad. R' Frand quoted an unidentified German philosopher who said that in the jungle it is survival of the fittest. The lion hunts and eats and the buzzards eat the leftovers. In the sea, the large fish each the little fish. This is the perception of the animal world. 

However the Gemara gives a different perception of the animal world as the Gemara states that if Hashem had not given the Torah, we would have learned Middos from the animal world. The Gemara gives an example of learning modesty from the cat. Why? Because when a cat needs to relieve itself, it goes to a private place. 

The Gemara continues we would have learned the concept of not stealing from the ant. Why? Because one ant will not take from another. We also would have learned about not straying in marriage from the turtledove. Why? Because they mate for life. The animal world teaches these concepts

R' Frand closed the vort that even when viewing the animal world, its all a matter of perspective. So to when we view others.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Behaalosecha

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The first vort R' Frand said tonight related to the Jews complaint about the Manna. [He quipped that the one thing that does not change is that the Jews complain about the food]. Initially they said in 11:4  וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מִ֥י יַֽאֲכִלֵ֖נוּ בָּשָֽׂר - we want meat. Next they said that in 11:5 - זָכַ֨רְנוּ֙ אֶת־הַדָּגָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נֹאכַ֥ל בְּמִצְרַ֖יִם חִנָּ֑ם אֵ֣ת הַקִּשֻּׁאִ֗ים וְאֵת֙ הָֽאֲבַטִּחִ֔ים וְאֶת־הֶֽחָצִ֥יר וְאֶת־הַבְּצָלִ֖ים וְאֶת־הַשּׁוּמִֽים they remember the "good old days" in Egypt when they ate fish for free. Then they said in 11:7 - וְעַתָּ֛ה נַפְשֵׁ֥נוּ יְבֵשָׁ֖ה אֵ֣ין כֹּ֑ל בִּלְתִּ֖י אֶל־הַמָּ֥ן עֵינֵֽינוּ - we are dried out because there is nothing, except for the Manna to look at.

This is difficult to understand, given the famous statement of Chazal that the Manna tasted like whatever a person wanted to eat. If they wanted steak - it was steak. Chicken soup - it tasted like Chicken soup.

R' Frand then quoted Devarim 8:3 where Moshe told the Jews "וַיְעַנְּךָ֘ וַיַּרְעִבֶ֒ךָ֒ וַיַּֽאֲכִֽלְךָ֤ אֶת־הַמָּן֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹֽא־יָדַ֔עְתָּ וְלֹ֥א יָֽדְע֖וּן אֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ." R' Frand noted that the term וַיְעַנְּךָ֘ is odd, as how was feeding the Jews Manna an affliction? R' Frand referenced the Gemara in Yoma 74 which quotes a Machlokes between R' Ami and R' Assi about what the affliction was. One of them said that it was people did not know from day to day if they would have food the next day, people were uncomfortable that they had no reserve. The second opinion was that people were afflicted because they did not see what they were eating and its not the same pleasure if you don't see what you are eating. The Gemara says that its better to eat in the day time when you can see what you are eating.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Arzei HaParsha which described a scientific experiment where people were given a steak and potatoes meal in poor lighting. The steak had been dyed blue and the potatoes were dyed green. They then turned the lights on and people did not want to continue eating.

R' Frand also referenced the Rashash on the words  בִּלְתִּ֖י אֶל־הַמָּ֥ן עֵינֵֽינוּ - all we see is the Manna. Regardless of what it tastes like, if all our eyes see is the Manna, we are unhappy.

R' Frand said that the Ein Ya'akov in Yoma quotes a Chazal which states that the pasuk in Devarim 8:3 וַיְעַנְּךָ֘ וַיַּרְעִבֶ֒ךָ֒ is a hint to the Mitzva of Hadlakas Neiros on Shabbos. We light the candles for Shalom Bayis, because people need to be able to see what they are eating in order to enjoy it.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the people who complained about missing out on Pesach. They had stated in Bamidbar 9:7 - וַיֹּֽאמְר֠וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָהֵ֨מָּה֙ אֵלָ֔יו אֲנַ֥חְנוּ טְמֵאִ֖ים לְנֶ֣פֶשׁ אָדָ֑ם לָ֣מָּה נִגָּרַ֗ע. The Sifri says that these people were Tzadikim and Chareidim Al HaMitzvos. R' Frand said that this is the source for the term Charedi in Israel - that people tremble. These people were trembling and upset that they missed out on the Mitzva. 

R' Frand observed that this is not the only time that we saw that people were upset in the Parsha as the first Rashi states that Aharon was upset that he did not have the opportunity to bring a Karban like the heads of the other tribes.

R' Frand told a story about a man who was ill and approached R' Yitzchak Zilberstein and told him that the doctor had told him that he could not fast on Yom Kippur. The man wanted instruction about how to eat halachically and R' Zilberstein went over the rules. The next day the man came back and said - I forgot what you told me. They reviewed it again in great detail, but the following day he returned again. The man was not mentally deficient, he was just so worried that he could not remember the rules as he was just too worried.

R' Frand quoted the Chidushei HaRim that when Aharon complained and Hashem told him that he would get the job of lighting the Menorah which was greater than the other Nesi'im. The Chidushei HaRim said - yours is greater, because your desire is greater than them. They were given the ability to bring sacrifices, but you wanted and desired it.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Nasso

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Bamidbar 6:13 the Torah states "זֹ֥את תּוֹרַ֖ת הַנָּזִ֑יר בְּי֗וֹם מְלֹאת֙ יְמֵ֣י נִזְר֔וֹ יָבִ֣יא אֹת֔וֹ אֶל־פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד". R' Frand quoted the Meshech Chachma who asked about the use of the words  יָבִ֣יא אֹת֔וֹ. Why does the Torah say that he should bring him? Who else should be brought?

R' Frand answered by first observing that the length of time of Nezirus is undefined in the Torah. Although it can be any period of more than 30 days, it can be 60 or 90 or 300 days long. The reason that the period is undefined according to the Meshech Chachma is that the length of the Nezirus is the length of time that a person needs to extricate himself from his desires. This will differ for each person and this is why the period is not fixed.  This explains the use of the words  יָבִ֣יא אֹת֔וֹ - because the person needs to make an internal reckoning of how long it will take him to reign in his desires.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Bei Chiya who in turn cites a Gemara in Nedarim about Shimon HaTzaddik who refused to eat from the Asham of a Nazir Tamei, with the exception of one particular Nazir from the South. The Gemara tells a story about how when this Nazir appeared before Shimon HaTzaddik, he asked the Nazir - you have such beautiful hair - why did you want to be a Nazir. The man responded that he was a shepherd and that one day when he was grazing the flock, he saw his reflection in a pool of water and said to himself - you are so handsome, you could have anyone you wanted. The Nazir became aware of how strong his Yetzer Hara was and he called out to himself - Rasha.

The Bei Chiya explains that this Nazir saw in himself that he was falling prey to the Yetzer Hara and he wanted to do something about it. This is the root of Nezirus, seeing in yourself that you need to change and be a new person, and however long that takes, so be it.

R' Frand said a second vort on the Sotah. He quoted R' Ya'akov Kaminetsky who observed that people think that the Sotah process is simply the punishment of a woman who strayed. But this is a misconception as Hashem could utilize many other ways for her to be punished, as opposed to a public miracle in the Beis HaMikdash where everyone sees what happens after she drinks the Mei HaMarim. Instead, the reason that this takes place in the public way that it does, is because the husband needs to know that she is innocent and to remove all doubts from his head. The only way to do that, is to have the woman drink from the water and ...nothing happens. Now, when they are reunited, the husband knows that nothing improper has occurred.

R' Frand cited the Ramban who notes that this is the only Mitzva in the Torah which is accomplished through miraculous means. This is because Hashem wants the husband to that she is innocent and to remove any doubts from his mind.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bamidbar

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand's first vort related to the number of children the tribes had in the census taken in the parsha. Binyamin had a population of 35,400 men over the age of 20, whereas Dan had 62,700, making it the second largest tribe behind only Yehuda. R' Frand quoted R' Chatzkel Levenstein who observed the curiosity of the count of the number of men from Dan and Binyamin. Binyamin had 10 sons, but his tribe had so many fewer members than Dan who only had one son. This is indicative of the hand of Hashem and His involvement in the fruitfulness of the tribes.

R' Frand next said a related vort about the number of members of the tribe of Levi. Unlike the other tribes, Levi's count was of males over the age of one month. [Although not mentioned by R' Frand there is a Medrash quoted by Rashi in which Moshe is reluctant to count as he did not want to enter the tents to count the babies. Hashem said to him to not worry about and when he approached the tents, a Bas Kol got involved in the inquiry and response]. But even though they were counted from a younger age, the tribe of Levi had only 22,000 members, making it the smallest tribe.

R' Frand quoted the Ramban who said that he believes that this was Chizuk for the other tribes. When the Jews were in bondage in Egypt, all of the tribes were involved in hard labor, but not the tribe of Levi. One might have thought that since Levi was not involved in back breaking labor, they would have had more children. However, the number of children was in directly correlation to the pasuk in Shemos 1:12 -  וְכַֽאֲשֶׁר֙ יְעַנּ֣וּ אֹת֔וֹ כֵּ֥ן יִרְבֶּ֖ה וְכֵ֣ן יִפְרֹ֑ץ.

The final vort had to do with the role of the Levi'im and their substitution for the Bechorim. We learn in the parsha that the Bechorim were "redeemed" in that their Kedusha was transferred to the Levi'im as a direct result of the Egel. However, there were 273 extra Bechorim who needed to be redeemed. In order to address this deficit, Hashem commanded Moshe to create a lottery system so that they would be redeemed for money instead of by the Levi'im. However, the Bechorim resisted this as they were willing to be redeemed by having their Kedushah transferred to a person, but not by money. 

R' Frand quoted the sefer Leket Yehudah which explains that these people were concerned about their legacies. When the Bechorim saw their Kedusha being transferred to a person, they felt that at least their legacy would endure. But if it was transferred to money, it was not the same. Just like in today's era, a person can have a legacy through their children and grandchildren or through their good deeds and philanthropy. But these Bechorim felt like their legacies would end if it was a monetary redemption and this is why they were resistant.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up! 

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Emor

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The Torah states in Vayikra 22:32 וְלֹ֤א תְחַלְּלוּ֙ אֶת־שֵׁ֣ם קָדְשִׁ֔י וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אֲנִ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶֽם. R' Frand remarked that these are two of the most important negative and positive commandments in the same pasuk - the concepts of Kiddush Hashem and the proscription of not making a Chillul Hashem. The mitzva of Kiddush Hashem at its pinnacle requires a person to give up their life, and to not commit one of the three cardinal sins. Over the centuries, Jews gave up their lives, rather than worship idolatry.

R' Frand quoted R' Nissim Alpert who was a talmid of R' Moshe Feinstein. R' Alpert asked about the words וְנִ֨קְדַּשְׁתִּ֔י בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל - why is this passively stated? The Torah does not command a specific positive act and instead states that passively Hashem will be made holy.

R' Alpert explains that a person does not make Hashem Kodesh overnight. It only occurs if a person a daily basis lives a life of being careful about what comes into his mouth and what comes out of his mouth and everything that he does, it is almost automatic that when the moment comes, he will cause Hashem to become holy. If a person lives an entire life L'Shem Shamayim, then at the moment of the ultimate test, he will be MiKadesh L'Shem Shamayim.

He then connected this with the death of R' Akiva. The gemara in Berachos describes the death of R' Akiva. R' Akiva was not killed instantaneously, instead, his skin was raked with metal combs while he was reciting Krias Shema and his neshama left him when saying "Echad." His students asked him - is this how far one must go? He responded that all the days of his life he waited for this to occur. R' Alpert underscored the use of the words "all the days of his life" - R' Akiva lived his life and this resulted in a Kiddush Hashem.

R' Frand also referenced the story of the Mikallel at the end of the parsha. The Torah describes that the man was a Jew since his mother was Jewish and his father was a Mitzri. This man got into a fight and he blasphemed in that he cursed Hashem. They brought him to Moshe, but he did not know what to do with him, so they put him in jail. Rashi explains that he was put in jail alone. There was another person in jail as well - the Mikoshesh Eitzim, but they did not put them together. The Mikoshesh was incarcerated because they knew that he was to be killed, but they did not know which form of death would be imposed. Meanwhile, they did not know what the punishment would be for the Mikallel, so he was placed in jail, but away from the Mikoshesh.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Ikrei Erev who explains that the reason they were in different cells is that the Mikoshesh was known to be on death row and they were not clear what would happen to the Mikallel. As an act of sensitivity, they kept the two apart, so that the Mikallel would not be concerned that he too could be facing death. 

But who are we talking about? The blasphemer! He did not act out of desire or due to his Yetzer Harah. So why is he kept apart? Because everyone, even if he did a horrible act, is entitled to our sensitivity. There is a concept of Inui HaDin - that we don't push off the punishment of a killer because we don't want him to feel anguish of the looming sentence. Similarly here, the men were kept apart so that the Mikallel would not feel scared that he could be facing a death sentence. R' Frand said that the lesson is that no matter what a person did wrong, we should treat him with sensitivity.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!